Three of the Top Compact Crossovers Face Off

Science-fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein said that specialization is for insects. Man, he said, "should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly."

If this is the type of performance we should expect from ourselves, why would we expect any less from our vehicles in 2013?

The crossover utility vehicle (CUV) is the jack of all trades in the automotive world and the 2012 Honda CR-V, 2013 Toyota RAV4 and 2014 Mazda CX-5 are at the top of the class. We rounded up an example of each, all of them loaded with all-wheel drive and a $30,000 price tag to find out which crossover is the best of the breed.

The Benchmark: 2012 Honda CR-V EX-L Nav AWD
Having received a thorough redesign for the 2012 model year, the Honda CR-V is the oldest vehicle in this test and was clearly in the sights of every other manufacturer as they released their newest crossovers. And as you'd expect from a modern, high-volume Honda, the CR-V sets a high bar.

The CR-V is only available in one engine/transmission combination: a 185-horsepower 2.4-liter four-cylinder hooked to a five-speed automatic. Though it's the only five-speed in the group, the CR-V's fuel economy is highly competitive returning an EPA estimate of 22 city, 30 highway and 25 mpg combined.

The Follower: 2013 Toyota RAV4 Limited AWD
With its 2013 redesign, the Toyota RAV4 now falls in line with the rest of the crossover crowd and is a hugely competitive entry into a hugely competitive field. This new generation of RAV4 benefits from a higher-quality interior and an honest attempt at a bold exterior design.

But while previous RAVs had an optional V6 engine, the new Toyota RAV4 makes due with only a 176-horsepower 2.5-liter four-cylinder hooked to a six-speed automatic. Despite offering an extra gear compared to the Honda, the RAV4 returns 29 mpg on the highway and is the only crossover in this test not to hit the magic 30 mpg number on the highway. Official EPA numbers are 22 city, 29 highway and 25 combined mpg. Like the other vehicles in this test, the RAV4 has AWD, but unlike the others, it has a locking center differential for even better all-weather traction. Bonus points.

As this is a Limited, the Toyota offers more toys than anyone ever expected a family hauler to have. This RAV4 has synthetic leather seats, dual-zone climate control, fully keyless entry/ignition, Bluetooth, navigation, a JBL 11-speaker stereo, back-up camera, USB input, blind-spot monitor and the only powered tailgate in this test. Finally, opting for this trim equips the RAV4 with 18-inch wheels. We'll get to those later.

When we drove the 2013 RAV4 for a full test earlier this year, we felt that the RAV4 hit all the right notes. Can it keep up that tune back-to-back-to-back?

The Trendsetter: 2014 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring AWD
Mazda's all-new CX-5 is the revelation in this segment. You simply need to look at the shifter to figure this out. The shifter's orientation, push to downshift, is the same you'd find on racecars and is indicative of Mazda's race-bred ethos. If it's possible for there to be a driver's CUV, this is it.

But just because the CX-5 has the soul of a sports car doesn't mean it's got the fuel-guzzling powertrain of one. The CX-5 has a silky-smooth 2.5-liter four-cylinder that produces 184 horsepower and is hooked up to a responsive six-speed automatic. In this AWD configuration, the CX-5 returns EPA fuel economy of 24 city, 30 highway and 26 combined mpg. By a hair, it's the most fuel-efficient vehicle of this test.

Like the rest of the cars in this test, this CX-5 Grand Touring AWD is filled to the grille with features. Leather seats, dual-zone climate control, Bluetooth, navigation, adaptive front lighting, keyless entry/ignition, blind-spot monitoring and the Grand Touring-mandatory 19-inch wheels. This 2014 Mazda CX-5, which is currently doing duty in our long-term test fleet, has a sticker price of $31,890.

We drove these crossovers for weeks. Each has its own unique personality, its own strengths and its own weaknesses. It would be easy to say they're all good picks, but the average family isn't going to buy three crossovers.

There can only be one winner.

Mazda CX-5

Honda CR-V

Toyota Rav4

Price as Tested:

$31,890

$30,825

$32,394

Horsepower:

184

185

176

0-60:

8.3

9.5

9.2

1/4-Mile:

16.2 @ 84.3

16.9 @ 82.4

16.8 @ 82.7

Cargo Capacity:

34.1 (65.4 max)

37.2 (70.9 max)

38.4 (73.4 max)

EPA Fuel Economy:

24/30/26

22/30/25

22/29/25

As-Tested Fuel Economy:

25.9

26.2

22.3

3rd Place: 2013 Toyota RAV4 Limited

The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.

This Japanese proverb pretty much sums up the changes Toyota made to the RAV4 for the 2013 model. Gone is the third row. Gone is the full-size spare tire. Gone is the side-hinged cargo door. Gone is the optional V6 powerplant. Everything that made the RAV4 stand out in the previous generation is gone for 2013.

Instead of being a unique, outlying data point in the category, the 2013 Toyota RAV4 is just like every other crossover in the segment. Without that uniqueness, the Toyota is outmatched.

Toyota upped its game significantly for the interior of this RAV4, but seemed to have done so without a cohesive mission. There's soft-touch material with ample padding surrounding the start button that could prevent dangerous finger-stubbing, but the driver armrest is hard plastic. The steering wheel is leather but the seats are covered in a synthetic material. The instrument panel is panderingly simple while the navigation system buries frequently used icons in menus. There are two cupholders up front, one obstructed by the lower portion of the dash, one obscured by the center armrest. And then there's the odd shelf that juts into the passenger's personal space and dumps all objects onto their lap.

It's the type of interior that makes less and less sense each time you use it.

With 38.4 cubic feet of space available the RAV4 has the highest cargo capacity of the group and has the flattest load floor. It's also the only vehicle in this test with a power-operated tailgate. Unfortunately for Toyota, the tailgate is painfully slow and refuses to be rushed manually. It's a nice parlor trick, but we'd prefer a high-quality mechanical solution to a wonky electrical one every time.

This victory in rear cargo space is offset by the Toyota's small rear seat. While the rear seats do recline, the Toyota has the narrowest rear seats with the least legroom. Consider it a four-passenger and hope those rear passengers stay skinny.

Finally, Toyota's powertrain dooms it to a closely contested 3rd place in this comparison. The RAV4 is the heaviest vehicle in this comparison and makes the least power. Though its six-speed automatic helps it to a narrow victory over the Honda in acceleration testing, real-world performance is a different story.

Part of our 116-mile Edmunds test loop involves a cruise-control-enabled, highway-speed, 7 percent incline grade. During this test, the RAV4's transmission could never settle on a gear. It would hold freeway speeds in 4th, panic about wasting fuel and upshift only to drop speed by 5 mph. The RAV4 would then downshift to get back up to speed and start the process over again.

The RAV4's race-to-6th transmission programming has the RAV4 bouncing between laggy and lurchy. This isn't fun and it isn't efficient. During our test, we averaged 22.3 mpg in the RAV4 with a best tank of 27.7 mpg. Nowhere near the combined rating of 25 mpg.

We could understand this low fuel economy if the Toyota had been a joy to drive and flogged repeatedly on back roads and twisting canyons, but that's not the case. The Toyota falls on the softer side of the handling spectrum and the 18-inch wheels feel heavy and impacts reverberate through the cabin. It's an odd sensation as the Toyota is whisper-quiet otherwise. These small compromises add up and give the 2013 RAV4 Limited a grade of "B" in our recommended ratings and a last-place finish here.

On flat, perfect pavement, the Toyota could have performed better. In the real world, though, it leaves it third out of three.

2nd Place: 2014 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring

The 2014 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring was this close to a victory due to powertrain alone. Mazda's Skyactiv engine is the most eager, willing and responsive here and propels the Mazda to the quickest 0-60 time by nearly a full second. The six-speed automatic transmission is fast, smooth and has the most sophisticated shift logic. No hunting. No waiting for a downshift. No compromise. Only a true manual would have been a better driving partner, and nobody wants that in a crossover. Nobody.

On the same grade that confounded the RAV4, the Mazda performed perfectly. It never second-guessed itself or lost any speed. The transmission's seamless performance is part of the reason the Mazda returned a test-best 29.9 mpg on a single tank of fuel. Overall, the Mazda returned 25.9 mpg. These figures nearly match its EPA rating of 24/30/26.

So what gives? Why 2nd place?

The Mazda has the most rear-seat room, but is a distant 3rd in cargo capacity offering 34.1 cubic feet of space with the seats up and 65.4 with everything folded flat. And thanks to its best-in-test 8.5 inches of ground clearance, the Mazda has the highest cargo loading height. In a class this competitive, these things matter.

As expected, the Mazda won the on-track battle and thoroughly impressed our test driver. Our on-road suspicions were backed-up on the track as the CX-5 was about a mile per hour faster through the slalom than the Toyota and six-tenths quicker than the Honda. The downside to this, and the Grand Touring's 19-inch wheels, is that the CX-5 has the busiest ride of the group. Impacts unsettle the cabin and the tight steering we appreciate when hustling requires constant attention on the freeway.

Considering how good the powertrain is, we could ignore the stiff suspension if that were the CX-5's only flaw. Unfortunately, with a sea of cheap black plastic and a tiny, hard-to-use navigation screen, the CX-5's interior falls behind the competition's. These tradeoffs help the 2014 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring earn a B grade in our recommended ratings and a 2nd-place finish here.

If your personal priorities for a family hauler favor driving engagement, responsiveness and style, there are few better vehicles on the road than the Mazda CX-5. If you're everyone else, there was one better in this test.

1st Place: 2012 Honda CR-V EX-L

If the Toyota RAV4 invented the crossover segment, the Honda CR-V perfected it.

Before we get into why the CR-V won, let's discuss its downsides. For starters, the shifter has an antiquated setup that uses a button for selecting 3rd gear then two gates for 2nd and 1st. This setup takes away fine speed control and forces the driver to use the clumsy shifter or, more likely, the brakes, far too frequently on things like long downhills.

And that's pretty much the end of the negatives.

None of these crossovers are fast, but the Honda does bring up the back of the pack by about three-tenths of a second to 60 mph. Honda makes the most power here, 185, and is the lightest so this is a bit of a surprise. Fault again lies with the transmission. Instead of being geared to get up and go, the CR-V is set up for smooth acceleration that doesn't disturb the occupants or drain the tank. And on that final point, the CR-V excelled.

The Honda was the only car in this test to best its EPA combined fuel economy rating returning 26.2 mpg during testing. We never got the Honda's claimed 30 mpg number, but we never got a bad tank. The 2.4-liter and five-speed automatic may not be the newest kids on the block, but the Honda knows when to pick a lower gear and feels stronger than the others from 30 mph.

But the CR-V doesn't win this one on fuel economy alone. For everything the Honda gives up in style it makes up for in kid-carrying, cup-holding, seat-folding, stuff-hauling function.

The front seats are the most comfortable in the test. They not only feature perfectly placed armrests, the seats straddle a huge storage bin. The rear seats are suitable for three adults, have easy LATCH points and offer the simplest, most praise-worthy self-folding mechanism in the test. Flip the lever and the seat bottoms fold out as the headrest tucks and the seatback rolls. The result is a nearly flat load floor with zero effort. And while the Honda's navigation/infotainment system has the worst graphics of the bunch, the interface is the easiest to use and requires the least amount of time with your eyes away from the road.

The driving experience in the CR-V is just as competent as the interior function. Thanks in part to 17-inch wheels with lots of sidewall, the Honda is the most civilized over broken pavement or light off-roading. One of the previous complaints with the CR-V in general was the prevalent road noise. That, thankfully, has been damped out for the 2012 model and now the CR-V is as quiet as any SUV in the class.

These crossovers are the antithesis of specialization. They may not intentionally butcher any hogs, but today's CUVs must ferry our kids, haul home-improvement goods, do light-duty towing, drive like a car, offer great visibility, drive safely through the rain and snow and return solid fuel economy.

All three of these SUVs can perform such tasks and perform them well. In the end, the 2012 Honda CR-V was the most efficient, the least expensive, the most flexible and the easiest to live with. It may not be the one you desire, but it's the one we'd own.

The manufacturers provided Edmunds these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.

There's nothing I could do to affect the acceleration of this CR-V. It punished pedal overlap and settled into a meager acceleration until cam-phase change aronud 5,000 rpm. Engine sounds peppier than it is. Upshifts are smooth but not very quick. Also, no means for manual shifting other than a traditional PRND21 (D3 button) lever and no rev-matched downshifts.

Braking comments

First stop was shortest and barely within the average for the class and those stops that followed were somewhat random and didn't follow any pattern linear or otherwise. Noisy ABS, generous dive and even some wiggle from the light rear.

Handling comments

Slalom: The CR-V gives a sense of handling capability with its taut ride, but when I started asking it to be nimble, it simply didn't have the grip, stability or steering to do it and the otherwise firmly spring suspension flopped over on soft dampers. ESC is either on or completely off, so leaving it on became a guessing game of when and how intrusive it would be. Skid pad: Plenty of body roll, feather-light steering and not very much info coming through the steering wheel either. A combination of throttle closure and brake application limits the CR-V here.

Generous reward for bringing the revs up before releasing the brakes. Engine sounds gutsy and upshifts are very smooth and quick. Manual shifting by console lever. Pull back to upshift (correct). Does match revs on downshift.

Braking comments

First stop was shortest and typically linear distance creep thereafter. Pedal travels quite a lot, but once the brakes bite, it's easy to modulate them. Very little commotion from the ABS and zero wiggle/wander.

Handling comments

Slalom: Excellent steering feel and response -- benchmark for this class. Confident turn in and the non-defeat ESC is rather permissive. It might go quicker without ESC, but not much. Takes a set nicely, is a little slow in transition, but it isn't upset by midcorner bumps. Skid pad: Very unobtrusive ESC intervention merely closes throttle to keep the tires from howling too much. Plenty of grip here, in fact, an unexpected amount of grip and most folks likely would never use all of it. Poised, confident and capable.

There's a very fine line between not enough and too much pedal overlap for a peppy run. The RAV4 hates too much. Acceleration is pretty lazy and challeneged from start to finish. Upshifts are quick and smooth in Drive or Manual mode (though it still upshifts at redline in manual mode) but no difference at full throttle. Does not match revs on downshifts.

Braking comments

First stop was shortest and it found a threshold quickly thereafter. Good fade resistance and firm pedal from start to finish. Modest dive and no wander.

Handling comments

Slalom: There's a more permissive level of ESC (not fully off) and it allowed a bit more aggressive steering input but still took the throttle away at the exit. The steering could use more feel, but the weight is appropriate. Skid pad: Especially in the "on" mode, ESC is pretty intrusive here with both throttle and brake application to limit progress. By the end of the lap around the skidpad, I believe I had the throttle pushed to the floor and it simply put-putted around. Steering felt rather spring-like here where it felt more natural in the slalom.

† Edmunds.com received the highest numerical score in the proprietary J.D. Power 2014 Third-Party Automotive Website Evaluation Study℠. Results based on responses from 3,381 responses, measuring 14 companies and measures third-party automotive website usefulness among new and used vehicle shoppers. Proprietary study results are based on experiences and perceptions of owners surveyed from January 2014. Your experiences may vary. Visit jdpower.com.